Terrence
Jamar Graham appeals an order denying his postconviction
motion challenging the sentence imposed during a 2017
resentencing hearing. Graham successfully appealed his
original sentence of life without parole. Graham v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 74-75 (2010). He was resentenced
in 2013 to a term of twenty-five years' imprisonment.
After the Florida Legislature enacted new juvenile sentencing
laws in 2014, Graham challenged his sentence again, arguing
that he was entitled to a sentence review under the new laws.
In 2017, the court reimposed the twenty-five-year term but
granted Graham a sentence review after twenty years. Graham
argues that his most recent sentence is illegal, asserting
that the new juvenile sentencing laws violate equal
protection because under the plain language of the laws, a
juvenile homicide offender may receive a sentence review
sooner than a juvenile nonhomicide offender. We disagree and
affirm.

In July
2003, when Graham was 16 years old, he and three other
juveniles tried to rob a restaurant in Jacksonville, Florida.
During the robbery, Graham's accomplice twice struck the
restaurant manager in the back of the head with a metal bar.
Graham and his accomplice then ran outside without taking any
money and escaped in a car driven by the third accomplice.
The restaurant manager required stitches for his head injury.

Graham
was arrested and tried as an adult. He was charged with armed
burglary with assault or battery, a first-degree felony
carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, §§ 810.02(1)(b), (2)(a),
Florida Statutes (2003), and attempted armed robbery, a
second-degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of fifteen
years' imprisonment, §§ 812.13(2)(b),
777.04(1), (4)(a), 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes.

Graham
pleaded guilty to both charges. The trial court withheld
adjudication of guilt and sentenced Graham to concurrent
three-year terms of probation with the condition that he
serve the first twelve months in county jail. Graham served
the twelve-month sentence and was released from jail in June
2004.

Less
than six months later and thirty-four days short of his
eighteenth birthday, Graham was arrested again, this time for
committing an armed home invasion and fleeing. At the
revocation hearing, the State presented evidence that Graham
held the victim at gunpoint while his codefendants robbed the
home and then locked the victim in a closet. The State also
presented evidence that Graham confessed to police that he
was involved in "two or three" other robberies the
night before. Graham denied at the hearing any involvement in
the home invasion robbery but admitted to violating probation
by fleeing. The trial court then revoked Graham's
probation. Graham was sentenced to life imprisonment for the
original offenses of armed burglary with assault and
attempted armed robbery.

Graham
appealed his sentence, and his case made its way to the
United States Supreme Court. In 2010, the Supreme Court
reversed Graham's life sentence, holding that the Florida
laws allowing juvenile nonhomicide offenders to be sentenced
to life without parole violate the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Graham v. Florida, 560
U.S. 48, 74-75 (2010).[2]

In
2013, Graham's case was remanded to the circuit court,
and he was resentenced to twenty-five years'
imprisonment.

In
response to Graham and Miller, the Florida
Legislature enacted new juvenile sentencing laws in chapter
2014-220, section 1-3 Laws of Florida, now codified in
sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes.
The new laws relate to juveniles convicted of "certain
serious felonies" and require courts to conduct an
individualized sentencing hearing before sentencing juvenile
offenders to life imprisonment.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
laws also allow juvenile offenders to seek judicial review of
their sentences after fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years-
conditioning when an offender may receive a sentence review
on (1) the nature of the offense, (2) criminal intent, and
(3) the length of the sentence. The first classification is
based on the nature of the offense and distinguishes
primarily between juveniles who commit offenses under section
782.04, Florida Statutes (the murder statute), and juveniles
who commit offenses not included in section 782.04. The
second classification is based on criminal intent. For
juvenile offenders convicted of a homicide offense under
section 782.04, the statute distinguishes between those
offenders who actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted
to kill their victims and those offenders who did
not.[3]
The final classification is based on the length of the
sentence imposed. Sentence review is available only if the
juvenile has been ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.